Simon och ekarna

A movie with great ideals and intentions, spanning themes like tolerance and equality.

However, for all its intentions, it's weakly executed. It moves slowly and doesn't really retain your attention. It's as if the director thought the idealism and themes would be enough to carry the movie, without working on the story.

The nazi inspired another story. This one did not need nazi all that much and could have happened in another time in the past. I liked the story that was not all sweet but contained a lot of real life elements.

Simon och ekarna – Simon & the Oaks – CATCH IT (A-) Swedish movie about two families, their friendship and common destiny in Sweden's Gothenburg in the 1940s and 1950s during World War II. The movie is told from young Simon Larsson perspective, who learns that he's an adopted child who has a Jewish father from Germany. The story in the backdrop of World War II in Sweden is really simple but what makes this interesting is the heart hitting performance by all the actors. It's just so uplifting to see how a poor father found the son he always wanted in the rich father's son and the rich father found the son he ever wanted at this poor family. Even though I loved the movie, I have to admit that the movie is much more fascinated when the kids were young. When they grow up, the relationship becomes more complicated and some of the things I didn't like e.g Simon disrespecting his mother. Though Simon was shown self centered from childhood but his leaving his mother behind led to her heart break and ultimate consequences. The performances by young Simon Jonatan S. Wächter and young Isak Karl Martin Eriksson are tremendous. Bill Skarsgård as adult Simon is great, and how he turned in to the obnoxious ungrateful person is interesting. Helen Sjöholm as Simon's mother and Isak's caretaker is such superb. I loved her portrayal. Stefan Gödicke as father of a poor family and Jan Josef Liefers Karl Linnertorp as father of the rich family are good. Overall, with stunning performance and cinematography the movie is a treat to watch.

Maybe I had too much expectations for this, but it was a pain to watch this to the end. I must first of all say that I haven't read the book of which this is based. I understand that this book is re-known, and I also understood that this was nominated to nothing less than 13 guldbaggar in Swedish film.

Well, that's not at all understandable to me. I tend to like films like this, but I'm afraid to say that this film is impossible to get hold of. It's pretentious, both in manuscript and in acting.But far worse is it that it becomes boring when the chemistry between the actors are missing.

What is likable, is Bill Skarsgård. He's the one coming from this alive, due to his charm, though the film can't seem to make the best out of it. Simon is not likable, if still charming. Maybe also with small Isak. A good actor, but not taken care of. I see this as helpless instruction of what must be fine actors to work with.

I tend to see it as Lisa Ohlin is not cut to make films like this. Both on screen writing and in directing this is very flawed. Overacted, constantly staring people is bad enough.

What's even worse is the sense of us not believing one bit of the story. It's too far fetched. It might have worked in the book, but in the film, when something gets remotely interesting, it's a cut into pieces. The clipping work is awful. It tears up what could have been a great scene. Like when Simon is confronting his parents. The next scene is him walking away from the little house with luggage on his bike.

Even more stupid is the thoughtful sequences, which are far-fetched, boring and badly done technically. The whole thing about the oak is also both pretentious and artsy fartsy. It makes you yawn and hate the concept.

What is good, is the environment and filming. Beautifully shot, it is, and so in vain, when the rest is not making up to it. I've read some quite good reviews for this one, but the critics must have been out to lunch. Such a waste. It's not a turkey, but rather a pheasant. I'd rather have chicken, any day.

Two boys meet at school in Gothenburg 1939. They become friends. One is a Jew and one is supposed not to be. One is upper middle class and one comes from a working class background.

Quite much is foreseeable here, but the greatest problem is the acting. Not that it's disastrous or even bad during the circumstances, but there are plenty of anachronisms here. From the laboring father, who is something out of the 60s, more than 1939. To the boys, who have a way of staring into the camera, which is common-piece in every Swedish movie, which tries to portrait harsh times. Especially if it's the 40s. "Something is going on inside that boy". The problem is that we know exactly what, when he has those eyes.

That is disturbing and takes quality out of this film.